Observational studyInternational ophthalmology2019
Effectiveness of sampling methods employed for Acanthamoeba keratitis diagnosis by culture.
Observational study in International ophthalmology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Navigating the Challenges of Acanthamoeba Keratitis: Current Trends and Future Directions.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Understanding Acanthamoeba Keratitis: An In-Depth Review of a Sight-Threatening Eye Infection.Microorganisms · 2024Review
- Epidemiology of and Genetic Factors Associated withPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- New Frontiers inBiology · 2023Review
- Diagnosis ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Evaluating the Diagnostic Potential of Chorismate Mutase Poly-Clonal Peptide Antibody for thePathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Risk factors, management, and outcomes ofAmerican journal of ophthalmology case reports · 2022Article
- Genotypic diversity of Acanthamoeba strains isolated from Chilean patients with Acanthamoeba keratitis.Parasites & vectors · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis retrospective, observational study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the sampling methods commonly used for the collection of corneal scrapes for the diagnosis of Acanthamoeba keratitis (AK) by culture, in terms of their ability to provide a positive result.
methodsA total of 553 samples from 380 patients with suspected AK received at the Parasitology Section of the Public Health Institute of Chile, between January 2005 and December 2015, were evaluated. A logistic regression model was used to determine the correlation between the culture outcome (positive or negative) and the method for sample collection. The year of sample collection was also included in the analysis as a confounding variable.
resultsThree hundred and sixty-five samples (27%) from 122 patients (32.1%) were positive by culture. The distribution of sample types was as follows: 142 corneal scrapes collected using a modified bezel needle (a novel method developed by a team of Chilean corneologists), 176 corneal scrapes obtained using a scalpel, 50 corneal biopsies, 30 corneal swabs, and 155 non-biological materials including contact lens and its paraphernalia. Biopsy provided the highest likelihood ratio for a positive result by culture (1.89), followed by non-biological materials (1.10) and corneal scrapes obtained using a modified needle (1.00). The lowest likelihood ratio was estimated for corneal scrapes obtained using a scalpel (0.88) and cotton swabs (0.78).
conclusionApart from biopsy, optimum corneal samples for the improved diagnosis of AK can be obtained using a modified bezel needle instead of a scalpel, while cotton swabs are not recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.